RUTHIE WHITE

v.

CITY OF MIAMI GARDENS

Before: ERIC W. HENDON, REEMBERTO DIAZ, and JORGE RODRIGUEZ-CHOMAT, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Ruthie White [White] appeals a final d ' a mlnistrative traffic violation order on several grounds, but only one that constitutes reversible error: whether her citation was unlawfully issued by a third-party vendor. Finding the record was insufficiently developed on this point, we reverse the Special Master’s decision and remand tl1'is case for further we grant White’s ' ' proceedings. In additio ielmbursement motio ' _,-— -1-1 -a ,\_ -1:

T.

s- 11> n pending a favorable outcome on remand.

FACTS & PROCED

__Z p

URAL HISTORY

On June 2'7, 2014, White approached a red l'ight and made a ri ht coming to a com le g turn without first p te stop. The Ci ' ' ty of I\/113.1111 Gardens Page 1 of 5 [City] had a red light camera at this ~ — ,,;QQi§;?*}?*?’l’i S |'__ ' ‘_ ~15 $ I [*2] 35.5 Section 1.3.16, for instance, states that the vendor puts the officer’s electronic signature on the citation. It, therefore, is unclear how the City’s red light camera system is different from the one found unenforceable in City of Ho_llywood v. Aregi, 154 So. 3d 359 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014) because a vendor generated the tickets. White, though, did not make the improper delegation argument at her hearing, and thus, the issue is arguably unpreserved for appellate review. E Saka v. Saka, 831 So. 2d 709, 711 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002) (“As a general rule, reviewing courts will not consider points raised for the first time 011 appeal”). Moreover, she did not obtain the City’s red light camera contract until March 25, 2015, i.e., after her hearing, and therefore, the Special Master could not make specific findings on the issue like the trial court did in Ag. Fundamental error, however, can be argued for the first time on appeal, and a judge’s refusal to apply binding precedent plainly “goes to the foundation of the case” and thus qualifies as fundamental. I51, Here, the record reflects that at the start of the hearing, the Special Master told everyone present that the gem case was a Broward decision that did not apply to Miami’s proceedings. E, however, is presently the only Florida appellate court decision on this issue, and thus, it is binding law. Pardo v. State, 596 So. 2d 665, 666 (Fla. 1992). Accordingly, we REVERSE the order below and REMAND this case for further proceedings on which entity issued White’s citation, because without this finding, this Court is unable to determine whether the essential requirements of iaw were observed.

MOTION FOR REIMBURSEMENT

White has also moved for reimbursement of the $1,982.61 in costs she incurred from this case. Florida Appellate Procedure Rule 9.400(a) states that costs “shall be taxed in favor of the 5 White attached this document as an exhibit to her initial brief. She did not present it at her hearing, but it is noted that the City did not object in its answer briefto White’s inclusion of the contract.

E I I [*3] /I_‘ i_€_é_E:_)_l)_)égrg i_|___,_)_‘__|i|______;)__I:_;_:____|_____ pm _‘__finufik“)¢)“y“L‘“FEH"h"">;,y”_“Abn‘“‘_‘ __|_|__ [*4] "K'.%’5E"“Q‘Ar:P‘._.|:P‘.“.“._‘HQh"HvV2%b“v"(“~g)unkEKEububnpflkflhfluhflnxnpfihwqnfiuhqnfivfihfIF) [*5] prevailing party unless the court orders otherwise,” and given the above holding, White has prevailed on appeal. Her motion is therefore GRANTED, and provided that White prevails on remand, the Special Master shall determine whether any ofthe $1,982.61 in costs are taxable. REVERSED and REMANDED for proceedings consistent with this opinion. CC: ALL PARTIES AND COUNSEL OF RECORD mP~azss=.....iaa~aa_rn ,_ _ wtfiaat. at assessanti

QQ.

new martsari I gr

;’.';‘-*7 I";-.1-.~ :}_ mime... 6- Page 5 of 5